Earlier last week I came across the Top 100 Social Brands of 2008, a list compiled by measuring brand mentions across social media platforms and based on an average of these mentions for each brand in the month of December.
Upon reading the list, I was especially struck by the top two brands, the iPhone and CNN. While one is a relatively new 
product that has revolutionized the way we use mobile and, most recently, doubled its Q4 sales over the previous year, the other is a nearly 30 year old news network competing with countless other organizations producing much the same product. So why their congruent success?
It's easy to understand why iphone topped the list. The iphone has enabled the use of social media applications mobilely unlike any phone before it, and with a large majority of tech journalists and early adopters utilizing social media tools like Twitter, Digg, and Facebook, it makes sense why the internet was abuzz with the iPhone in 2008.
CNN, on the other hand, is a bit different. Its product, journalism, is ubiquitous. While there can be discerning attributes to the network’s journalism that may set it apart; journalistic integrity, un-biased coverage, evocative subject matter, it is only marginal in scale and certainly not enough to create large amounts of buzz, as the news is a product reproduced by myriad publishing organizations. So why does CNN beat all but the iphone in social media mentions? What makes it nearly as buzzworthy as the revolutionary iPhone?
I like to think of it as the "what" vs "how" differentiation. The iPhone's success is the iPhone. It's a product that's buzzworthy for what it is and how it changes our everyday interactions. Congrats to Apple and Jobs for developing such an amazing product. However, CNN can't rely solely on it's "what," the quality of its journalism. Instead, CNN must rely more heavily on the "how," the way it is delivered and the experience they provide.
This is where CNN levels its competitors. CNN has joined the social media space in an innovative way that provides utility to its audience. Case in point: the presidential inauguration. CNN, like most other major networks, streamed the inauguration live on their website. But while the majority focused on the quantity and ease of access to coverage, CNN focused on the social media integration. CNN allowed their audience to connect and interact with their Facebook friends with a click of a mouse. After the inauguration, CNN set up "The Moment," a Microsoft photosynth experience encouraging inauguration attendees to submit their photos, creating a 3D image experience created by the people, for the people. Gimmicky, sure, but it's buzzworthy.
I recognize that the particular examples cited previously occurred in 2009, I cited them as the freshest examples of CNN's innovation. In 2008 CNN impressed us with Rick Sanchez et al. incorporating Twitter into on air segments, iReports, and essential tools and features such as RSS, bookmarks, and embeddable video (not to mention tech-geeky stunts including holograms and complex touch-screen maps.)
CNN continues to pursue what gives them that 'purple cow' effect that inevitably draws the spotlight on a brand. While their 'what' may be good, it's their 'how' that is exceptional.
